Your weekly Rush

Here's Rush on the smart set.

You know how these intellectuals are when they get together and speak. It's just the funniest thing in the world to listen to, and when you add to it they all think they're smarter than everybody else in the room, it is just one of my favorite things, to listen to a bunch of intellectuals discuss things with each other, and to hear how impressed they are with themselves.

I don't know, but I detect just a hint of anti-intellectualism when I listen to Rush. Oh, and if you didn't know already, Kerry is the intellectual in the race.

I wonder how it would scan if I typed something like "You know those southern hicks when they get together and speak. It's just the funniest thing to listen to." Guess that wouldn't sound too good.

I'm not really sure what's wrong with being an intellectual.

Pictures of Ybor City

I went back to Ybor City today after my meeting and took a few pictures (which was about half my reason for going) so here are a few pictures of how Ybor City looks.



That's a picture of some guy leaning against the wall reading the paper. Has some historical significance, but I don't recall what it is.



I just liked the way this staircase looked.



A shot at the big movie theater and the Ybor City sign.

Update

Just letting you know I will be doing Round the Horn on Monday--I was on the road today (as you know) and just got back into my apartment and frankly I am tired. Tomorrow I will be busy for most of the day; so I will come back here on Monday.

I do have some pics of Ybor City I will be putting up shortly.

I'm So Bored with David Limbaugh

This is a reference to the great Clash Song "I'm So Bored with the U.S.A."

Anyway David Limbaugh is pulling out all the stops to defeat Senator Kerry. And he's getting on my nerves. Remember, he's the serious Limbaugh brother. But he is taking several pages from his brother's book these days. For example, repeating groundless accusations in the form of a question.

What is Kerry so afraid of? Why doesn't he want you to find out the identity of that man behind the curtain? Why doesn't he want you to read his book "The New Soldier"? Why doesn't he want you to see "Stolen Honor"? Why won't he release his medical records? Why won't he talk about his Senate record? Why won't he address specific charges about his Vietnam tour?

Obviously I can't answer all these questions for the Senator, but Limbaugh gives away his game in the second question. He wants us to accept at the outset that there is a hidden Kerry; one that doesn't jibe with the one that he's presented.

He brings up the swift boats and other charges almost immediately, as you can see. "Stolen Honor" is a smear piece on Senator Kerry, not an honest documentary. I mean if Republicans are going to make such a big deal about Fahrenheit 9/11, comparatively a more honest film, than why can't they understand Kerry's desire not to have a smear job on him shown right before the election?

Of course Stolen Honor refers to Senator Kerry's accurate testimony before congress on the subject of certain activities engaged in by American troops during Vietnam. But let's let Mr. Limbaugh tell it.

Do you think there's any love lost between Kerry and the military? He has never withdrawn his institution-wide slander nor apologized for it. He did everything he could to undercut our military, its morale and its mission in Vietnam, and he has done exactly the same thing with Iraq. When he criticizes its performance in Iraq every other day, while saying he respects, honors and supports our troops, does anyone believe he's sincere?

First of all if Kerry criticized all soldiers or stated that all soldiers who served in Vietnam are guilty of murder, well that's pretty bad. But he didn't. He suggested the people who created the Vietnam War allowed a situation to exist in which the chaos of war allowed atrocities to be committed. It was the leaders who were to blame for creating the situation, not the individuals who found themselves in that situation.

As for the Iraq war, Kerry's comments have been along the same lines. He thinks President Bush and his advisors rushed into this war too quickly. You can agree or disagree with that premise, but to suggest that criticizing the leadership in this war is the same thing as criticizing the troops is just deceptive.

But what else can you expect from a Limbaugh?

Ybor City

Well I'm on the road again. A one day trip to Tampa, which I've taken twice before. You think I'd have this stupid city figured out by now, but not so much. At any rate, today I traveled to the historical community of Ybor City, which is a small part of the larger city of Tampa. Apparently Ybor City was the old Cuban section, and the architecture is still from that period and is pretty impressive. On the other hand the shops containing that architecture were . . . Somewhat less impressive.

It's clearly a club area, which I have nothing against. But since I was there at 6:00, it wasn't really club time yet, and even if it had been club time I would likely not have participated (I'm shy). So maybe I didn't see Ybor city at its best. Anyway it was one of those trendy art communities, with lots and lots of clubs and such.

I walked a four block by three block area and saw five tattoo parlors. After seeing the third tattoo parlor I began to think this area had a lot of tattoo parlors in a small space. At the fourth tattoo parlor I saw three young people outside smoking and looking bored, and suspected that that particular tattoo parlor was overstaffed.

Outside the fifth tattoo parlor I saw a girl writing on the back of a guy in permanent marker.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Probably cuts down on expenses.

Anyway, no book stores in Ybor City. Two record shops--one a fashion store with a little bit of Drum and Bass and Breakbeat music (neither of which are my favorite, I much prefer Acid Lounge, Acid Jazz, World Beats and so on). The owner who was nice enough, but also gently suggested that I didn't really fit into her store, recommended I visit FYE. Which was an overpriced Mall CD Shop. The one in Gainesville is pretty good--this one sucked.

On the other hand the clerk at FYE did have a nice detailed tattoo on her wrist. So it's nice to see her supporting the local economy.

Conflicted

I am feeling very conflicted just now. I have been down on Eminem for quite a while; I think he's kind of a psycho-jerk, mostly based on his attitudes towards woman. But apparently his new album has a slam on old President Bush, in the song Mosh.

Stomp, push, shove, mush, f*** Bush
Until they bring our troops home
Come on.

Maybe we can reach al Qaeda through my speech
Let the president answer on higher anarchy
Strap him with an AK-47, let him go fight his own war
Let him impress Daddy that way

Well that's not the most reasoned argument I've ever read, but well . . . maybe . . .

Naw, forget it. I still think Eminem's a psycho-jerk.

How vicious is vicious? How mean is mean?

This is a really obscure reference to the song "How Rapid?" by the Art of Noise off of their 1988 album, "In No Sense? Nonsense!" Just so you know.

It also refers to Ms. Ann Coulter. I came up with a great idea for today's column--since she so often tries to pass of her mean spirited senseless rants as "Humor" I would give her a taste of her own medicine. Ha ha ha. All I'd have to do is come up with some way to characterize that's sufficiently extreme so as to top her and beat her at her own game!

Well, I'm sure you can already see the flaw in that theory; I'm having a hard time coming up with anything. After all how do you match a statement like this?

This may be the first time in American history that the decisional calculus for many voters will be: Do I really want to throw my hat in with these crazy people?

But of course Ann Coulter isn't going to stop at just making crazy and unprovable assertions that make no sense. No she's also going to make assertions that are easily disproved.

John Kerry has called the war with Iraq "a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake." He said it was no excuse that "Saddam might have done it 10 years from now" - use weapons of mass destruction against Americans, apparently. (New Kerry campaign slogan: "Let Radical Islamic Iraq Be Radical Islamic Iraq!")

I know that Neo-Crusaders like Ann would like to portray a unified Islamic society in the middle east. That makes it easier to justify their suggestion that we invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. But for those of us who live in the real world, Iraq, while certainly dangerous, was a secular state.

Anyway I just can't match her. I just don't have enough hate in me.

Everybody Loves Kerry

Here's an opening line from Tony Blankley's latest article.

It's getting to that point in the campaign when more than everything that needed to be said has been said. Rhetorical exaggerations being judged insufficient, straight out lies now fill the airwaves.

Here is a line from a little further into Tony Blankley's latest article.

. . . all the pollsters have agreed that there are no pro-Kerry voters in the country. This election is simply breaking along the line that divides the voters who don't like Kerry from those who really, really don't like him.

Yeah, you've really got your finger on the pulse of this issue, don't you Mr. Blankley?

Fortunately Mr. Blankley ends his article with this crowd-pleasing line.

The foregoing observations should be seen as sort of neo-gonzoish (with a respectful tip of the hat to Hunter Thompson), and should not be taken as literally accurate in all its particulars.

Well that makes it all better, then.

The Electoral College

Jonah Goldberg defends the electoral college in his latest article. A lot of people have suggested that the Electoral College may not be the most fair or democratic way of determining who is to be the President. To this Mr. Goldberg says Phooey (not literally).

His first argument in its defense? It's been around a long time. Hmmmmmm. The old stood the test of time argument. Yes but does it perform like it used to? I mean I'm sure you can find old Model Ts still around (if not on most roads) but the reason they are still around is that clever and hard working and wealthy gents and ladies have spent a lot of time and wealthy refurbishing and keeping them on the road. Has anybody spent the same kind of energy keeping the Electoral college running smoothly?

Secondly there is the states rights argument. I can buy that in regards to the Senate I can understand and buy that argument, but I don't see it's application here. Everybody in America gets the same vote for President; the President is the President of everybody.

The real switch would be in campaigning. Urban areas would automatically take a greater importance, and rural areas less importance. That's not to say farmers are any less represented, they still get their one vote each. But Presidential politics will naturally gravitate to those areas where a lot of people live. To my mind this might be a positive development; country folk don't give a crap what happens to people in cities. In many cases they actively despise those fools who choose to live in cities. So the problems of cities are often ignored. I'm not sure this would fix that problem; but it might have positive benefits.

The other question is how much does personal political advantage play into this argument? An increase in people voting usually helps Democrats. An increase in Direct Democracy might very well help Democrats as well. There's nothing unfair about it; but Republicans would have to evolve to the new situation. Which they would not like to do.

Personally I like the idea of Instant Runoff balloting--but we certainly need to do something. But we certainly need to do something. A Model T doesn't fall apart if you don't believe in it; an Electoral system just might. After all it is a social system; those only work if people believe that they work. See, for example, the trip without a ticket. Anyway something to think about.

A Person of Faith

President Bush is a person of faith. I could hedge my bets and say he claims to be, but I have no way to judge his heart. But I will give this to him. I am also a person of faith. So the question arises, what do I, as a person of faith, owe him?

This is not an idle question; I've read dozens of articles over the last year that tried to suggest, obliquely or directly, that as a person of faith I should vote for President Bush. And I've read the suggestion, over and over again, that one of the things Liberals have against President Bush is his faith. I should therefore defend him against those who would attack him, and by extension all people of faith. This argument willfully ignores both Senator Kerry and President Clinton's faith, which gives you a hint as to how sincere it is.

That brings us to an article in the New York Times Sunday Issue by Ron Suskind, author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill." The article, entitled "Without a Doubt," deals with President Bush's religious faith and how it feeds his belief in his absolute rightness.

First things first, the article is too long and wanders a bit. It might read better in the magazine format, but I got a little lost towards the middle on where he was going. But it is still quite informative and at times even terrifying. It paints a picture of a President unable to brook even the slightest disagreement.

There is one story about Bush's particular brand of certainty I am able to piece together and tell for the record.

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

What's telling about this event is not that the President confused Sweden and Switzerland. That's easy enough to do. What's telling is that the President stuck to his guns, refused to be corrected, and the men around him knew enough not to make the correction.

How does this tie back into the President's faith or my own? Well Suskind sees them as connected, mostly because that is apparently how the President sees them. The President makes decisions, according to Suskind, based on a gut reaction and his faith. This doubtless works for him on the campaign trail, as he relates in discussion those who understand President Bush's faith.

That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!''

President Bush talks the language of faith, so those with faith gravitate to him. President Clinton had this gift in part as well, but Kerry seems to lack it.

Of course the large question is how does religious certainty make one a good political leader? Isn't that like asking, well, how does religious faith make one a good plumber? Well maybe a bit more honest (although not necessarily). Is President Bush's certainty and unwillingness to brook disagreement really a good thing? Does the mere existence of faith make one wise?

I have my own answer to these questions, from Matthew 7:16-20.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I don't want to imply that President Bush is a false prophet or an evil person on any level. But I do want to suggest that were his methods of governance divinely inspired, we would see the fruits of those labors, and they would be sweet. Instead, the best thing President Bush's supports can say about his presidency is that his programs will succeed down the road even if they haven't yet (at this point they usually shift discussion to how awful Senator Kerry is).

Anyway something to think about.

Go look at this!

The latest This Modern World is one of the best ever! You can go see it here at working for change. If this seems familiar, it's because it's exactly what the Republican party did with the ill-chosen words "Global Test."

Those Stupid Voters!

Cal Thomas writes on the depressing state of the American Voter in his latest column. Apparently voters don't know enough on the essential issues of the day, according to a poll taken by the libertarian Cato institute, performed by a Mr. Ilya Somin.

You might be suspicious of what sort of information Mr. Thomas expects his readers to have (seeing as he is a very partisan writer in general). For example, he might expect his readers to "know" that Senator John Kerry shot a fleeing kid in Vietnam out of malice (according to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. For more info on the "truth" of this story, check out yesterdays Daily Howler). He does expect voters to know that the Bush Admininstration has certainly never ever tried to link September 11th and the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Somin posits an interesting theory as to why people don't know more about the issues when they vote. Rather than ascribing laziness or stupidity to them, perhaps they are simply being rational.

. . . even a smart and hardworking person can rationally decide not to pay much attention to politics. No matter how well-informed a person is, his or her vote has only a tiny chance of affecting the outcome of an election. Since that vote is almost certain not to be decisive, even a citizen who cares greatly about the outcome has almost no incentive to acquire sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice.

Acquiring significant amounts of political knowledge to be a more informed voter is, in most situations, simply irrational. But the rational decisions of individuals create a dysfunctional collective outcome in which the majority of the electorate is dangerously ill-informed.

If political ignorance is rational, there are limits to our ability to reduce it by reforming the education system or by improving media coverage of politics.

Not the most upbeat analysis, admittedly.

The problem with talking about stupid voters is that the obvious assumption is that if people really knew their stuff politically, they would vote for the guy I'm going to vote for. It's hard to believe that someone would know the issues and know the facts and vote for that jerk, "candidate B." It's pretty clear that both Mr. Somin and Mr. Thomas believe that an informed electorate will favor their guy (President Bush), while my assumption is that an informed electorate would largely go for my guy (Senator Kerry). But of course one of us is probably wrong.

I'm guessing its Somin and Thomas. If you want to look at the text of Somin's report, you can get it here (it's a PDF).

We Live in a Nuanced World

Just driving around catching part of a radio program, where in the host commented that he didn't want a President who saw things in terms of nuance. I don't know what that means. We live in a nuanced world. People who want simple answers are being childish. There are few simple answers in life, certainly not in politics..

Now please don't write and explain to me that, as a Liberal, I probably don't have a moral code, probably don't believe in right and wrong, and use "nuance" as a means to justify my depraved lifestyle. First of all my lifestyle is only mildly depraved. Secondly, I do believe in right and wrong - believe in it passionately. I believe, for example, that it is wrong to put a tax cut, predominately for the wealthy, ahead of the safety of our troops as President Bush did, when he lowballed the cost of the Iraq war to protect his tax cut.

But even that simplistic issue has a nuance to it. I mean if President Bush's tax cut had worked, and the economy was roaring now; would that be an acceptable pay off? A strong economy would mean a stronger economy, and increase our ability to defend ourselves. So would that be a good pay off? It's at least discussable (although I think I still stand by my assessment above).

Promises

There is an interesting paragraph in Michael Barone's latest effort.

Democrats tend to win on domestic issues if the question is: Who is going to spend the most money? Voters believe, plausibly, that Democrats will. Thus for many years, education was a Democratic issue. Democrats, with their strong support from the teachers union, always promised to spend more.

This isn't exactly true. Traditionally, Democrats have wanted to fix problems, and have been comfortable spending money to do so. Traditionally, Republicans have wanted to ignore problems or blame the problems on things government can't control.

For example, the Conservative solution to segregation was to explain patiently that you can't force people to like each other using governmental methods. That's probably true; but of course that would have left Southern Blacks segregated until Southern Whites decided to give them their rights. (For those conservatives hurrying to send me a message explaining that more Republicans voted for Civil Rights legislation, I would point out in the 1960s the parties were not lined up Republican/Democratic the way they are now).

What is unusual about the current President (which Michael Barone notes) is that he's learned that just ignoring or minimizing the domestic problems facing America won't work as a strategy. So instead he propose programs to help solve problems and then fails to fund them (as he did with the flawed and then underfunded No Child Left Behind act. Of course it's fair to wonder if the American people are going to fall for this shell trick, but I see no reason why they wouldn't.

New Quote, New Format!

Yep, it's time for another new quote, and along with that a new Quotes Page.

Also a new format; we are switching to dark backgrounds with light letters for a while; that means that to see certain posts properly, you will probably want to click on the post name tot the right there or go back a week in the archives. In most cases it won't make much of a difference. Enjoy!